None of us talk like this, right?



  • I keep hearing people saying stuff like "cross-reference the data in system a with that in system b".

    I've never had to say that, and I don't believe I've ever heard my technical peers say that either. I've only heard it in TV shows / movies that try to be smart (the CSI VB GUI bit comes to mind), and people that have seen it mentioned in TV shows / movies.

    Or am I TRWTF?


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    ..That's not a weird sentence to me. Why would it be? To cross-reference data is to check one set against another, in order to either a) compile a more complete set of data, or b) ensure parity between the systems.

    But then apparently I use words like "parity" in casual conversation, so maybe I'm TRWTF myself?



  • Yeah, it makes sense to me, too. I've talked about cross referencing different sets of data. I'm just usually not dealing with separate systems like those shows tend to be. Nor am I investigating something the way TV detectives are.

    OTOH, I don't think I've ever talked about (on the speaking or listening end) "opening up a socket."

    I heartily agree with the OP's general premise, however. One of my big pet peeves is people talking about "tech."



  • I don't know if I've heard that exact phrasing, but God knows we do that often enough around here. I think we usually use the word "audit".

    "Ted's auditing that XML file to make sure each record has a database entry."

    Pretty much every workplace that has "iffy" data importer tools needs to do this from time to time.



  • @boomzilla said:

    OTOH, I don't think I've ever talked about (on the speaking or listening end) "opening up a socket."

    I might "open a socket", but I'm not from the particular subculture that throws the word "up" in there on a regular basis.

    Round where I work at the moment, the verb is more likely to be "ouvrir" than "open", ...



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Pretty much every workplace that has "iffy" data importer tools needs to do this from time to time.

    Pretty much every workplace that needs to import data has these tools.

    EDIT: Goddamned motherhumping Discourse and/or my PC, lost a star somewhere...



  • @AgentDenton said:

    cross-reference

    Sure, if you're a layman. If you're in MySQL (TRWTF) you say "join", if you're in excel you say "pivot". If you're in PHP (TORWTF) you say "associative-array", if you're in javascript you say "object-keys".

    In Soviet Russia, keys object to you!



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Pretty much every workplace that has "iffy" data importer tools needs to do this from time to time.

    Or worse yet, has to deal with the data nightmare that we do, where we have people who have to deal with this sort of stuff as a full-time job because trying to automate all the corner cases because more of a pain than it's worth.



  • I'd probably say compare instead of cross-reference, but I've been spending a lot of time talking to non-technical folks over the past year.



  • Reconcile is a good word to use



  • @Steve_The_Cynic said:

    I might "open a socket", but I'm not from the particular subculture that throws the word "up" in there on a regular basis.

    Round where I work at the moment, the verb is more likely to be "ouvrir" than "open", ...


    Back in Baltimore, we might hit you upside the head for that kind of talk.



  • On one of the snark/politics blogs I frequent, there was some guy writing in to explain his libertarian/Randian philosophy to us benighted souls, and referred to the "args" he was going to make. Basically, the use of that abbreviation is what people focused on rather than on the substance of the arguments themselves (not that there was much to them other than a regurgitation of Ayn Rand). He claimed to be a computer programmer who uses "args" in everyday conversation. I have never heard anyone, in our field or elsewhere, talk like that. Whatever credibility he might have had went out the window for all of us, even if there were people on the board at the time who might have sympathized wit his views.



  • Isn't reconcilliation "making two data sets consistent with each other", rather than "comparing one with the other"?



  • Essentially yes. There are many meanings and usages of the word. Eg.

    verb (used with object), reconciled, reconciling.

    1. to cause (a person) to accept or be resigned to something not desired: He was reconciled to his fate.
    2. to win over to friendliness; cause to become amicable: to reconcile
      hostile persons.
    3. to compose or settle (a quarrel, dispute, etc.).
    4. to bring into agreement or harmony; make compatible or consistent: to reconcile differing statements; to reconcile accounts.
    5. to reconsecrate (a desecrated church, cemetery, etc.).
    6. to restore (an excommunicate or penitent) to communion in a church. verb (used without object), reconciled, reconciling.
    7. to become reconciled.

    (make the goddamned editing box resizeable fu christ's sake!)

    But my "favourite" is:

    verb

    1. restore friendly relations between. "the king and the archbishop
      were publicly reconciled"
    2. make (one account) consistent with another, especially by allowing for transactions begun but not yet completed. "it is not necessary to reconcile the cost accounts to the financial accounts"

    For obvious reasons.

    I was only saying it was a good word :)



  • @loose said:

    Reconcile is a good word to use

    Except if it's on a button, because the kind of software that has that is next going to say [An unexpected program error [x] has been detected. The reconciliation will now close without performing a reconciliation and without saving your most recent changes] and make you cry.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @AgentDenton said:

    Or am I TRWTF?

    You're posting here, so yes.



  • Cross-reference is hardly jargon. It's a simple, useful word that describes a simple, useful thing that someone might need to do with some pieces of information that they have.

    So if your peers never use that word, that just tells me that they're all too head-in-the-clouds to even know what their users are actually going be doing with any of the data that their products provide.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Buddy said:

    So if your peers never use that word, that just tells me that they're all too head-in-the-clouds to even know what their users are actually going be doing with any of the data that their products provide.

    Or they're using another word that means something pretty similar. Comparing things from one collection of information with things from another collection of information so as to either try to make them more consistent or to learn something more about the combination… that's pretty common.



  • or they aren't using any term, because they didn't think it was something that needed a name. As developers, joining 50000 records across ten different tables isn't significantly harder than breathing, but we're generally not the ones who would be going through each line of that dataset, trying to match it up with another dataset that doesn't have any columns in common (or maybe it does, but the users still find themselves juggling windows because we haven't added cross-referencing as a feature—just heard the projects team COMPLAINing about something like that the other day, after a senior dev got given a big ass curved wide-screen, while they're still on regular-size screens).

    I figure a person doesn't need to do something like that more than one or twice in their life to be intimately familiar with the meaning of the term ‘cross-reference’.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Buddy said:

    As developers, joining 50000 records across ten different tables isn't significantly harder than breathing

    Provided there's a foreign key relationship or something that can be trivially munged to create that.

    Otherwise, no.



  • @Steve_The_Cynic said:

    lost a star somewhere...

    We all lost stars :frowning:



    File under: Up their starholes


  • BINNED

    Dude! Necrophilia and cruelty towards the living? Some of us are still in mourning!

    Jerk.

    P.S.:

    @loopback0 said:

    File under:

    No way. That sounds like work. File it yourself.



  • @Onyx said:

    Necrophilia

    Blame Discourse. It suggested the topic.

    @Onyx said:

    File it yourself.

    Oops :facepalm:



  • Since this thread was brought to my attention by the necrophiles...

    @slavdude said:

    He claimed to be a computer programmer who uses "args" in everyday conversation. I have never heard anyone, in our field or elsewhere, talk like that.

    So you're one of those people whose methods take params, rather than args?


  • BINNED

    @Zecc said:

    So you're one of those people whose methods take params, rather than args?

    FTFY



  • Nope; they take parameters or arguments.



  • @slavdude said:

    Nope; they take parameters or arguments.

    For comparison, it's my understanding that the methods in Discourse's code take abuse.



  • @loose said:

    Reconcile is a good word to use

    No, that implies you might actually fix problems if you find any. Better to not raise people's expectations like that.



  • @Zecc said:

    So you're one of those people whose methods take params, rather than args?

    I don't know about these "methods" of which you speak, but back when we did procedural programming, subroutines took parms; you passed them args when you called them. Any halfway decent programmer understood the difference, and anyone not in the Brotherhood could never figure it out.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @da_Doctah said:

    I don't know about these "methods" of which you speak

    They're subroutines with a hidden this parameter that is used to pass in a pointer to a record (the “object”) used to store some perhaps-useful variables.



  • @boomzilla said:

    For comparison, it's my understanding that the methods in Discourse's code takeinflict abuse.

    FTFU


  • BINNED

    @da_Doctah said:

    subroutines took parms

    I keep waiting for subroutines that take prawns, but still no luck.



  • @AgentDenton said:

    I've only heard it in TV shows / movies that try to be smart

    I do it on a daily basis. It's matching records from set A to records from set B, where they are supposed to be the same, but not quite.

    I abuse the word "mapping", though, when describing that.



  • @Onyx said:

    subroutines took parms

    I keep waiting for subroutines that take prawns, but still no luck.

    It's spelled "pr0n", and you find it on the internet, not in subroutines.


  • BINNED

    http://www.deathball.net/notpron/ :question:

    It's pretty hard, but I feel lied to again. I was promised other things would be hard, not website navigation.



  • @slavdude said:

    Nope; they take parameters or arguments.

    But then again, when I talk, I talk like a normal person. The guy I mentioned in my original comment used "args" in a non-technical conversation.



  • @Onyx said:

    http://www.deathball.net/notpron/ :question:

    I think I know what it feels like to be blakey trying to use git.




  • kills Dumbledore

    @da_Doctah said:

    It's spelled "pr0n", and you find it on the internet, not in subroutines

    Some sub routines are in certain types of pr0n, but the doms don't generally like them to call it routine




  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @loopback0 said:

    We all lost stars :frowning:

    @Onyx said:

    cruelty towards the living? Some of us are still in mourning!

    Jerk.

    I think I've gotten more stars since the demise of the millennial thread than while it was alive.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    [spoiler]
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Jared_Fogle_(2007)_cleaned_up.jpg/440px-Jared_Fogle_(2007)_cleaned_up.jpg
    [/spoiler]

    Gah! :hide: That is some hideous photoshopping.



  • @Zecc said:

    you're one of those people whose methods take params, rather than args?

    Mine take args, but they have parms.



  • @Zecc said:

    Since this thread was brought to my attention by the necrophiles...

    Some of us prefer the term 'human-thread post-mortem romantics', thank you very much...

    Filed Under: Yeah, twice for one thread! Score!


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.